Re: 50K record DELETE Begins, 100% CPU, Never Completes 1 hour later
От | Clay Luther |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 50K record DELETE Begins, 100% CPU, Never Completes 1 hour later |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F67EB38120F7BB4BB972C786095802070E3407@ipcbu-exchange.amer.unity.cisco.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: 50K record DELETE Begins, 100% CPU, Never Completes 1 hour later
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Actually, I tried the NOT IN query as well, as well as writing and caching the primary keys I wanted to be sure to deletefor deletion later. Both of these options produce the same results, which lead me to believe there's a concurrancy issue somewhere, perhaps. I had combed our code for uncommitted writes, but found nothing outstanding. I am testing now with autocommit=true. Sort_mem is 32K. cwl > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:32 AM > To: Clay Luther > Cc: Pgsql-General (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 50K record DELETE Begins, 100% CPU, Never > Completes 1 hour later > > > "Clay Luther" <claycle@cisco.com> writes: > > ccm=# explain delete from numplan where pkid in (select > numplan.pkid from numplan left outer join pilothuntgroup on > numplan.pkid=pilothuntgroup.fknumplan left outer join > devicenumplanmap on numplan.pkid = devicenumplanmap.fknumplan > where numplan.tkpatternusage=2 and pilothuntgroup.fknumplan > is null and devicenumplanmap.fknumplan is null); > > The left join/is null thingies look like a workaround for our pre-7.4 > lack of performance with NOT IN queries. Have you tried expressing > this more straightforwardly with NOT IN? > > Also, what sort_mem setting are you using? > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: